I found the WMDs!

[squian]

We have just been looking in the wrong place the whole time! See the editorial on Mad Gun Disease (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6941-2004Sep8.html).

[viscousmemories]

I tried six login/pw combos from bugmenot then gave up. :P

[squian]

Strange, I go through google news and there's no registration whatsoever. But through this link, I have the same problem. Search "assault weapons" on news.google.com and there's plenty of non-subscription articles to choose from.

The issue:
At midnight Monday -- barring a sudden change of heart on the Hill -- the any-model-goes marketing of military assault-style weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines can resume as a 10-year ban on certain firearms expires.

Essentially, this will means it will soon be legal again to buy AK-47s, TEC-9s, and Uzis.

President Bush -- who said during the 2000 campaign that he favored a prohibition -- has yet to lift a finger for it. White House spokeswoman Clare Buchan has said that Mr. Bush "supports the reauthorization of the current assault weapons ban," adding that "the president's views are well known" among GOP leaders in Congress.

Despite the president's "views" there is no action whatsoever. As a voting block the NRA is just too good to pass up just to hold to one's "views".

Meanwhile, gun manufacturers are poised to roll out their holiday lines of assault weapons, complete with bayonets and other features outlawed by the ban. The Post's Dan Eggen reported yesterday that a study by the Consumer Federation of America, based on interviews of gun industry officials and reviews of advertisements and other sales materials, concluded that the new models will be more efficient and less expensive than those sold before the ban took effect. To spur sales, Beretta has offered customers two free 15-round magazines with the purchase of two of its weapons. The law restricts magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

[viscousmemories]

Yup, after reading this article (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/assault.weapons.ap/index.html) it looks like a done deal.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters.
What a steaming pile of horseshit. The American people haven't heard about it because GWB was too busy trying to stuff Charleton Heston's cock down his throat to follow through on his campaign promise to renew it. Contrast that spin above with these findings of the Consumer Federation of America (http://www.consumerfed.org/ASSAULTWEAPONSURVEY2004.pdf):

The Vast Majority of Americans Want the Assault Weapons Ban Renewed Asked if they favored or opposed renewing the assault weapons ban, most Americans said they “strongly favored” or “somewhat favored” renewing the ban, as shown in the attached Figure. Sixty-seven percent said they favored renewing the ban, including 57 percent who strongly

favor its renewal. A solid majority of gun owners, 56 percent, support renewing the ban, with 45 percent strongly supporting renewal.

[Dingfod]

Myself, I cannot wait for the ban to lift. Them dang evil flesh-eating deer are getting out of hand. If they can have multiple tines on their antlers, I should be able to have large capacity magazines for my "deer" rifles.

Besides, I've built several new gunslits in my hilltop bunker that need to be armed and ready for the coming "unrest".

God bless John Ashcroft. God bless George Bush. And, god bless Merka. Dammit!

[JoeP]

dang evil flesh-eating dear
That's no way to talk about your wife, Worrn.

[Dingfod]

dang evil flesh-eating dear
That's no way to talk about your wife, Worrn.I calls it like I sees it.
:D

[Gawen]

Looks like I may be the only one here that wants the ban lifted.

[Dingfod]

Looks like I may be the only one here that wants the ban lifted.Maybe not.

[Petra]

Meanwhile, gun manufacturers are poised to roll out their holiday lines of assault weapons, complete with bayonets and other features...

Uhhh...what exactly do you guys do on holiday? :eek:

Over here, "holiday lines" are along the lines of inflatable dinghies and fishing rods, golf clubs and swim gear. That kinda thing.

For those that are happy to see the ban lifted, may I ask why?

[viscousmemories]

Dammit, I didn't even see Gawen's post much less Warren's response. And here I went and blew my wad fighting about this with dantonac and others at IIDB (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=97630). It's a moot point now, of course, given that the ban has been lifted. But I'm still interested in hearing the arguments too. So far all I've heard is variations on the every American should be allowed to have as many and as big of guns as they want theme.

[Gawen]

This post will most likely be my worst ever...and a very wishy washy attempt to explain myself....and only myself. And long.

Hmm hmm...*clearing my throat*

Ever since I can remember, I've always had a fascination of firearms. Every firearm. Matchlocks, flintlocks, percussion, battle rifles (assault guns), machine guns, mortars, heavy weapons, tanks, howitzers and cannon of all types. My interest spans from current to mid 1600's. My interests also include bullets, powder, cases, primers, all of it.

In younger years I was an avid bird hunter. That went away to become avid deer hunter. Now I hunt nothing, but for the only reason it's way too expensive in Texas.

From 1981 to 1991 I possessed a firearms dealers license. At one point, I had a total of 12 firearms, now down to 5. Two rifles (one small calibre and one large calibre). The small one has passed down to my son. But he's only 16 years old and I won't let him out of the house with it without me. The other rifle is a collectors item and I rarely shoot it. I have one shotgun which I keep around for home defense and hunting, if I ever decide to hunt again. I have two pistols, one small and one large.

I reload my own ammunition and have several hundred dollars wrapped up in the equipment.

Throughout my life I have had many guns. I've had to stop and think, maybe a total of 30 firearms...and count, but I've had 5 so-called assault rifles. Just so everyone knows, there is no such thing as an assault rifle (the military calls them battle rifles) and civilians must go through a process to own a battle rifle.

I've taught Juniour Rifle Marksmanship to teenagers. I've taught Hunter's Saftey classes. Everyone in my family likes to shoot. I'm especially proud of my daughter who shoots very well.

But that's the short of it. The question boils down to the dreaded 'assault rifle'; a high capacity firearm.
Why?
Well, because I like them. They are quasi-military. I like military fireams as well as I like a muzzle-loader. I'm a late- Viet Nam veteran. I quailfied with every small arm and some large calibre weapons in the U.S. inventory and some from the now extinct Soviet Union.

Do they have or serve a purpose? Not really. Well, yes they do, but I'll get to that in a couple tics. They are just fun to shoot. I've played many games at ranges and out in the boonies with high capacity rifles. But like machine-guns, they are expensive to buy and to shoot. Most people can't afford to feed a high capacity firearm in large quantities.

Here's where many of you, if not all of you may laugh and shake your head. But I believe that the people must remain armed, as the Constitution says, if for the only reason to stop the government of running away with itself. Think of it as a National insurance policy. You hope you never have to use it, but it's there if you need it. No, I'm not some paranoid gun nut. But history will show you if guns are outlawed from the populace, you end up like Naziism, Soviet communism, tryany and depsotic governments. This takes us out of the scope of my writing and I shant persue it further here.

What of crime? I'll let the statistics speak for themselves. You can believe who's statistics you wish. But I've never robbed anyone, not have heard of anyone robbed by a person with an 'assault rifle'. Yes, the big stories you see on your nightly news channel are the rare exceptions. 1997 L.A. for example. Or the dude in S. Dakota, Randy Weaver...I think. And even Waco, Tx. There is only 3% of firearm related crimes commited with 'assault rifles'. One percent of 1% are committed with machine guns.
Again, another can of worms outside the scope of this writing.

So far, Americans have the right to own firearms. They must go through background checks to do so. They must fill out papers that go to the Federal Gov. Some people put tons of money into cars or aircraft. I like guns. I like to shoot. It's a hobby more than anything else. And I like to put 10 or 20 or 30 rounds downrange as fast as I can. I don't expect anyone reading this to understand. But I, like most Americans own firearms for recreational purposes, not to hold up banks and Mom & Pop shops or car-jacking.

There are over 30,000 guns laws on the books at the moment in the U.S. When the judges get off their fat asses and start putting away killers and offenders that use firearms during a crime, my hobby will not be in danger of going away.

One more thing. I am not a member of any pro-gun organisation...so don't throw the NRA in my face. Again, a whole different can of worms. I can hear the arguments coming now. Why can't you get a different hobby? Your want of this hobby gets people killed. The objects of your hobby gets people killed, injured and robbed, etc...etc etc. Gun manufacturers should be held liable.

All I'm doing here is telling you from MY POV. It's all about me...and millions of other hunters, sportsmen, target shootist, collectors and hobbyist.

Most sincerely,

Gawen

{edited to add} And I really dislike being labeled as having "Mad Gun Disease"

[squian]

Gawen,

To some extent, I can appreciate your POV. As a young boy, I certainly had my share of gun enthusiasm. One of my earliest memories is getting some cowboy cap guns for Christmas. And for many years, I certainly loved to play "war" with other boys in my neighborhood.

However, growing up in Detroit gave me a unique "appreciation" for guns. There is something deeply disturbing about having to face one and to know people who have lost familiy to them. As such, I have a certain emotional bias that happens to be contrary to yours.

As to your dislike for being labeled with "Mad Gun Disease", I am not surprised. The title of the article was purposefully provacative, as was my use of it in the OP. If we put aside the distinctly negative connotations for a minute, do you think it is unreasonable for some people to see your hobby as unhealthy? Afterall, we are talking about a fascination with implements that are mainly used for killing people. Maybe it's a misunderstanding about the purpose of "battle rifles (assault guns), machine guns, mortars, heavy weapons, tanks, howitzers and cannon of all types." I guess what I'm getting at is that your response did not really explain why you like guns or why you think it's perfectly normal.

[dave_a]

Looks like I may be the only one here that wants the ban lifted.

Nope, I couldn't agree with it's being lifted more. I thought it was a stupid piece of do nothing legislation. Besides I want my cool looking AR15 now.

I could have purchased a not so cool looking one long ago, but I have been holding out. I want one identical to the M16 A2 I had in the Marines.

It just isn't fair that for 4 years I had to go to bed every night praying :
" This is my rifle.

There are many like it, but this one is MINE.

My rifle is my best friend. It is my life.

I must master it as I must master my life.

My rifle without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless."

And then upon return to the civilian world some nanny feel good legislation tells me I must become useless.

Seriously, I feel like doing the happy dance with the ban having been lifted.

[livius drusus]

And then upon return to the civilian world some nanny feel good legislation tells me I must become useless.

Are you being serious here, dantonac? Please say no, because that chant is chilling and inhuman to me, and to be honest I can barely stand the thought that anyone would actually internalize it to such an extraordinary degree that they consider themselves useless without an M16. :(

[viscousmemories]

And then upon return to the civilian world some nanny feel good legislation tells me I must become useless.
Are you being serious here, dantonac? Please say no, because that chant is chilling and inhuman to me, and to be honest I can barely stand the thought that anyone would actually internalize it to such an extraordinary degree that they consider themselves useless without an M16. :(
I vaguely remember having to memorize something like that in the Army. I have no doubt combat troops need that kind of committment to their weapon in the field, but I share your hope that he doesn't still believe it.

Gawen, thanks for sharing your story. FWIW I don't think you're a horrible person or anything. But I honestly see no point in trying to debate the issue with anyone who has the unwavering devotion to guns that you and dantonac have both expressed. As I said I already gave that a go at IIDB and it's really pretty pointless.

I really can understand your POV, I just don't share it. To me guns are largely unnecessary for civilians in modern America, and cause a lot more suffering than they're worth. I wanted to see the ban on assault rifles stay because I believe it limited (however arbitrarily) the number of guns that were produced and distributed. To me that's a good thing, but I realize you disagree.

I know that in the end we're all just doing what we think is right.

[Gawen]

However, growing up in Detroit gave me a unique "appreciation" for guns. There is something deeply disturbing about having to face one and to know people who have lost familiy to them. As such, I have a certain emotional bias that happens to be contrary to yours.[quote]Having grown up in Flint, I can relate. I also know people who have lost their lives or been injured by firearms. I knew an 8 year old whos late-teen step brother drug dealer's gun killed her accidentally when his younger brother found the pistol under his pillow. It was a crime all around. Pitiful. Disgusting. And when I saw the girls father (my friend) at the funeral (three months later because they pulled the plug on the brain-dead daughter) cry, I did too.

[QUOTE]As to your dislike for being labeled with "Mad Gun Disease", I am not surprised. The title of the article was purposefully provacative, as was my use of it in the OP. If we put aside the distinctly negative connotations for a minute, do you think it is unreasonable for some people to see your hobby as unhealthy? Not for me. For others, yes. I think my hobby is the only hobby where people use the 'implements' or 'tools' of the hobby and kill or get killed by them. It's sad really. But people are beaten to death with que sticks and baseball bats.

Afterall, we are talking about a fascination with implements that are mainly used for killing people. This depends on your POV. To be honest, I have two firearms with the purpose of defense. I really hope I never have to use them, but years ago, I once did and the firearm saved me a great deal of pummeling. That's the other two guys pummeling me, not the other way around. Also, I did not have to fire the gun. Just the look of it sent them running in the opposite direction.

Maybe it's a misunderstanding about the purpose of "battle rifles (assault guns), machine guns, mortars, heavy weapons, tanks, howitzers and cannon of all types." I guess what I'm getting at is that your response did not really explain why you like guns or why you think it's perfectly normal.I don't know why. People like all sorts of things and sometimes it makes one wonder..."Why in the world would anyone like THAT?". Like for example, rock climbing, or mountain climbing. Although the implements of climbing can certainly kill other people, it is generally not done. But the act has certainly killed the climbing enthusiast. I make no excuses. I see no reason why a person needs or wants to climb rock. Nor do I see the fascination of it.

I suppose, when I really get to thinking about it, I like the engineering of a firearm. The evolution of the art, so-to-speak. How someone can make a rifle shoot a bullet into a 30mm dot from 300 metres away. Not only does the rifle have to be engineered in such a way as to make it accurate, so does the person firing the rifle; in as much as the practise and patience and time and money. This is what I do at the range. Accuracy. From making the cartridge to the firing of it.

Is it normal? Society defines norms. So far I'm normal. I do not have an arsenal and billions of rounds of ammo. Nor do I drool over gun magazines. I hit maybe 3 gun shows a year, when I could conceiveably hit one every two weeks. I buy my guns legally and they are not used in crimes. There's a difference between a gun enthusiast and a gun nut.

Is it normal to like things military? I have no clue. I suppose it is. Otherwise there would be no military museums....no air shows or historical reinactments. No military books, fiction or otherwise. Yeah, I'm pretty normal, I'd say.

[Gawen]

And then upon return to the civilian world some nanny feel good legislation tells me I must become useless.

Are you being serious here, dantonac? Please say no, because that chant is chilling and inhuman to me, and to be honest I can barely stand the thought that anyone would actually internalize it to such an extraordinary degree that they consider themselves useless without an M16. :(I'm sorry dnatonac, but I agree with LD. Perspective is needed here. In the military, you're useless without your weapon. When you're a civie, things change. You might like to have that AR-15, but you are not useless without it in the world. People live all their lives without firearms. They are not useless. Neither are you.

[Gawen]

I feel the same way but on the opposite end. Generally I don't engage in banter of this sort. I don't feel like I'm a bad person. Or have my head twisted on the wrong way. Nor do I feel people who don't like firearms are the same way. I have friends that are anti-gun. We never talk about it. The same as I have theist friends, but we never talk about it.
I can get along with just about everyone.

[QUOTE]I really can understand your POV, I just don't share it. I wanted to see the ban on assault rifles stay...To me that's a good thing, but I realize you disagree.

I know that in the end we're all just doing what we think is right.I know. And I don't look down on you for your beliefs in the matter. Hell, I'll even buy ya a drink if we ever meet... :yup:

[Scotty]

I like the mechanical pureness of guns. They are a manufacturing marvel.

Plus, I think of the whole thing kind of simplistically.

Lets say all guns are banned in the US (or assualt weapons, battle whatever):
Are gun manufacturers going to go out of business? Some probably. Are guns going to be unnecessary? Probably not, because the Army etc will need them, so, they are still available, and other countries will want to defend themselves too, so they will stay in business.

Then, lets say we take away all guns from people. Who is going to give them up? All of the law abiding citizens, because, you know, they are law abiding.

Now, we have to crack down on gun ownership and put people in jail for owning guns illegally. Thus, more crowded jails (oh, except I think they do that anyway, or at least it is a law now, right? Bad to own gun if you aren't supposed to?).

Well, then I just cliche myself, but that leaves the people that already have the guns illegally still owning guns. Plus, guns are still being produced, and probably all would be assault (battle) weapons, so they will still be on the market in some way or other (imported or black market).

Will not allowing people (law abiding) the right to own weapons cut down on crime? I don't know. Deaths? Probably overall it would go down, less accidental deaths.

I doubt violent crime would go down.

My thought is this. If nobody had guns, I wouldn't care about not having them (except I like the mechanical portion of it).

If the army/police were the only people allowed to have weapons, I would feel very uneasy about where I lived.

Now if just assault weapons are banned (again), I just don't see what difference it would make (the 1997 LA example was when the ban was in effect).

Either you have to ban them all, or, get along.

Can't we just all get along :D

See, I told you I was simple.

-Scott

[viscousmemories]

I know. And I don't look down on you for your beliefs in the matter. Hell, I'll even buy ya a drink if we ever meet... :yup:
It's a deal, but it has to be non-alcoholic and you have to come unarmed. :D

[dave_a]

And then upon return to the civilian world some nanny feel good legislation tells me I must become useless.

Are you being serious here, dantonac? Please say no, because that chant is chilling and inhuman to me, and to be honest I can barely stand the thought that anyone would actually internalize it to such an extraordinary degree that they consider themselves useless without an M16. :(

No, I wasn't being serious. Evidently I omitted an appropriate smilie. But in all seriousness I was happy to see the ban expire.

The "prayer" I posted is an actual prayer in the Marines(but it's incomplete as I posted it), duing boot camp you recite it in unison with everyone else as the final thing you do before lights out and sleep. Every night.

I can't recall the name of the movie right now for some reason, but it was a Vietnam type Marine movie that is a classic now. It offered what is probably the most realistic portrayal of Marine boot camp I have seen in a film and they show the recruits saying the prayer.

Anywho, no I wasn't being serious. I am quite glad to be out of the Marines, but I *do* still have a fondness for the M16A2. I have no desire to own any other firearm, just that one.

[Scotty]

"Full Metal Jacket" if I am not mistaken


-Scott

[Gawen]

Gun control debates...*huge sigh*.

Such an old and worn out debate. Not to be rude, but I just won't offer any views on the subject.

It's a deal, but it has to be non-alcoholic and you have to come unarmed. Kewl. But you do bring up an interesting point. The only times I go armed is to the range, and even then everything is in the trunk.

Ok, one non-alcoholic daquiri and one empty trunk comin right up!... :D

[viscousmemories]

Kewl. But you do bring up an interesting point. The only times I go armed is to the range, and even then everything is in the trunk.

Ok, one non-alcoholic daquiri and one empty trunk comin right up!... :D
Groovy.

Anyway on a more personal level I really like guns too. A lot, actually. My favorite part of being in the Army was shooting guns, and one of my least favorite parts was the fact that we didn't get to do it more often. (As an aside: I really hate tests, y'know? I shot expert every single time we practiced during basic, but when it came time to qualify I got marksman. Pissed me off to no end.)

The reason I don't own a gun, never have and never will, is that if I did people (up to and including myself) would be dead and/or I would be in prison. I have a profound aversion to physical confrontation, and as such I have never physically attacked anyone nor would I (unless I was defending someone else). But I do fear that having a gun would put enough distance (physical and cognitive) between me and another person that it would be dangerous.

However I realize that's just me. The reason I think guns should be severely restricted for others (and not cue sticks, baseball bats, etc.) is because of their sheer volatility. It is unlikely that a 9 yr. old kid is going to even try - much less be able - to kill a 250 lb. man with a cue stick or baseball bat. It could happen, but just nowhere near as easily as it could happen with a gun.

As such I just find it absurd when people say guns are no more dangerous than bowling balls or whatever. I mean I'm sure you could kill someone with a carrot if you tried hard enough, but where are the stats for carrot-related injuries and deaths? I'm sure some would say we just don't hear about them because of the political convenience of going after guns. I call that being deliberately disingenuous to support your cause. I can understand the argument that guns aren't made exclusively to kill people with, but I don't think anyone can deny that they are the most efficient tool for the job.

Anyway dantonac I'm glad you aren't the serious nutcase I was afraid you were after that post last night. And don't forget to get an m-203 grenade launcher for that m16. It has no function but it shore looks purty. :D

[dave_a]

"Full Metal Jacket" if I am not mistaken


-Scott

You are the lucky winner, please step forward to claim your prize. Oh wait, there is no prize other than you win. :D

[livius drusus]

I'm relieved. Yes, I recall that scene in Full Metal Jacket, and I also recall the endresult of one character's internalization of that "prayer" (doesn't it bug you at all that it's called that?). It's one of the reasons I found your post so disturbing.

[dave_a]

Anyway dantonac I'm glad you aren't the serious nutcase I was afraid you were after that post last night. And don't forget to get an m-203 grenade launcher for that m16. It has no function but it shore looks purty. :D

LOL, good to hear I am not a nutcase.

I have fired the M203 and found it to be quite useless as a weapon. It is an arcing round and therefore it is pretty much impossible to hit anything with it. The only real usefulness of it is to launch smoke grenades and things of that nature where precision aiming isn't important. As such, it's just a clunky piece of hardware weighting down the rifle unnecessarily.

Now see, VM, you mentioned that you might not trust yourself with a firearm. I have heard others say that as well. I have no response to that as I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I grew up in a family that hunted (I don't enjoy hunting personally), then went into the Marines, and live in an area with a lot of wide open land with friends who own lots of acreage so I am constantly exposed to guns as tools.

I can understand if someone in Milwaukee didn't like guns because Milwaukee is where everyone gets killed in this state. So, gun ownership in Milwaukee is seriously strict compared with the rest of the state. What we see happening there now are gangs of kids beating people to death with bats, 2x4's and shovels. Unfortunately there have been at least 2 widely reported instances in the last year or so. Guns or no guns just doesn't matter to these people.

So, among the many gun owners I know I have never seen anyone misuse them in any way, ever. Among the criminals I see them getting violent regardless of whether they have a gun or not.

So, legislating the tool seems pointless to me. It screws with me and those I know and doesn't prevent the thugs from being thugs at all.

I just wish that folks would wake up and realize that the overwhelming majority of the violent crime takes place in the poorest areas of large cities and it doesn't make any difference whether they have guns or not. For most of the country violent crime is a complete non issue and gun control is completely unnecessary.

[Darren]

"Assault" or "battle" rifles, whichever you prefer, are precision engineered to kill humans. Collectively, considering the death toll due to such rifles throughout the world, they are indeed weapons of mass destruction. They cannot possibly be compared seriously to low calibre hunting weapons which are unable to shoot, say 30 or 50 aimed rounds (5.56 mm ) in a couple of minutes over hundreds of metres as assault rifles can.
I find such a precision engineering industry both chilling and unworthy of my support.

[livius drusus]

(Yay! Darren posted! And he agrees with me! And he's in Brittany where the coolest standing stones are! :hisign: )

[dave_a]

"Assault" or "battle" rifles, whichever you prefer, are precision engineered to kill humans. Collectively, considering the death toll due to such rifles throughout the world, they are indeed weapons of mass destruction. They cannot possibly be compared seriously to low calibre hunting weapons which are unable to shoot, say 30 or 50 aimed rounds (5.56 mm ) in a couple of minutes over hundreds of metres as assault rifles can.
I find such a precision engineering industry both chilling and unworthy of my support.

I think you are referring to automatic weapons. Assault weapons referred to under the US assault rifle ban are not automatic weapons.

They are semi automatic rifles that fire the same rounds the hunting rifles at Walmart fire. A 30 06 commonly used for deer hunting rifles is far more powerful than the 5.56mm round the M16 and AR 15 use. Most of the rifles considered assault rifles under the ban are LESS accurate than the Walmart rifles. One of the initial complaints the military had concerning the shift from the 7.62mm to the 5.56 mm round was that is wasn't powerful enough to have assured stopping power. That isn't considered an issue at this point, but I am just trying to educate you as to the type of weapon you are speaking of.

I, and many others, refer to the assault weapon ban as the ban on scary looking semi automatic rifles. Last time I used that terminology VM, I think, wanted to choke me with his bare hands, but the point is despite the outward difference in appearance, these rifles are functionally the same as their less scary looking walmart couterparts and usually less powerful and accurate than a deer hunting rifle made by Remington and sold at Walmart.

Oh, and they have never been used in much crime in the US. During the mafia days I understand "Tommy Guns" were all the rage, but stuff like that isn't covered by the assault weapon ban. All rifles, assault style or otherwise, have consistently accounted for 5% or less of gun crimes in the US since forever. About the only type of weapon used in crimes *less* often than assault rifles are bow and arrows.

[Ronin]

Which leads me to wonder what their uses are at all.

The only time I've come across them is in the hands of a citizen committing a crime and not protecting property/others.

Anecdotal, I'll admit, but very important to me in forming my own opinion.

Is it the common assumption that such an armed populace is necessary to potentially defend itself against a suddenly oppressive government?

If so, I think the US government has shown a complete capacity to just bomb the living shit out of any resistance.

Buy a PS2 instead...more cost effective.

[Darren]

What does "semi-automatic" mean here though? If you mean a weapon that is capable of firing single rounds repeatedly without having to reload or cock the weapon once before emptying a magazine, then that's exactly what I'm referring to. An assault rifle fired on fully automatic setting is so inaccurate as to be practically useless, one fired on semi-automatic is far more accurate and thus more deadly. :glare:
Interesting stuff about the high calibre/ high accuracy hunting weapons. I didn't know all that, so I'll add them to the scary gun list.
Having watched "Bowling for Columbine" I'm scared stiff of Walmart anyway. :wink:

I'm still convinced that, globally, the small arms industry is unworthy of even the smallest investment from the smallest investor.

[Scotty]

Buy a PS2 instead...more cost effective.

You know, you are absolutely right, he doesn't have to bomb the shit out of us, he has the most efficient weapon ever made...TV!

Ronin, you are amazing. :D

-Scott

[viscousmemories]

I, and many others, refer to the assault weapon ban as the ban on scary looking semi automatic rifles. Last time I used that terminology VM, I think, wanted to choke me with his bare hands, but the point is despite the outward difference in appearance, these rifles are functionally the same as their less scary looking walmart couterparts and usually less powerful and accurate than a deer hunting rifle made by Remington and sold at Walmart.
Nah, I wanted to shoot you. :D

Seriously though, it's not that I didn't understand your POV, it was your insistence that pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash suppressors and even a grenade launcher are purely cosmetic alterations. As if the addition of these components is no different than painting the weapon blue. Even if I accept your claim that these components don't alter the weapon's functionality substantially (which in fact I do) saying the only purpose they serve is to make the weapon "scary looking" is just obviously untrue.

The part that got me upset was that you even acknowledged that it was untrue when you said that those things improve the usability and performance of the weapon. Blue paint doesn't improve the usability and performance of the weapon, it's purely cosmetic. Something that improves the usability and performance of a weapon is not purely cosmetic. That's just a fact. Calling those things cosmetic is just an equivocation to support your assertion that the ban was totally arbitrary, when in fact it wasn't. Largely arbitrary I'll grant you, but not totally. "No blue guns" would be totally arbitrary, "no guns with grenade launchers" is not.

[dave_a]

Seriously though, it's not that I didn't understand your POV, it was your insistence that pistol grips, collapsible stocks, flash suppressors and even a grenade launcher are purely cosmetic alterations. As if the addition of these components is no different than painting the weapon blue. Even if I accept your claim that these components don't alter the weapon's functionality substantially (which in fact I do) saying the only purpose they serve is to make the weapon "scary looking" is just obviously untrue.

The part that got me upset was that you even acknowledged that it was untrue when you said that those things improve the usability and performance of the weapon.

I realize that was the source of your frustration, but if you reread my posts I think you will find I frequently said "mostly cosmetic" rather than "purely cosmetic". And as you noted I did acknowledge that they improved the versatility of the weapon.

The point that I was trying to make was that I think many people simply find assault weapons scary looking whereas they don't find a Remington deer rifle scary looking. For this reason I think many find banning them appropriate, but don't see any reason to ban the rifles for sale at walmart. In that context I was trying to make the point that the difference is appearance, not a functional difference.

As I noted in my previous post in this thread, an AK47 or AR15 is no match in terms of power or accuracy when compared to rifles designed for deer or even larger game hunting. An assault rifle is really just a more flexible tool in terms of it's usage than a hunting rifle. It is designed to be more comfortable to carry, often lighter, get through the brush easier (shorter overall length) etc. If I want really good accuracy, then I buy a match rifle. If I want really high power, I go buy a 50 cal (perfectly legal). If I want versatility and am willing to sacrifice some power and accuracy to get it then I buy a so called assault rifle.

Why the assault rifle has been demonized given it's virtually nonexistent use in crimes before and during the ban I just don't get. I can only conclude it is because of how it looks, cuz it sure isn't because of it's being less accurate and powerful than Walmart rifles.

[JoeP]

No, I'm not some paranoid gun nut. But history will show you if guns are outlawed from the populace, you end up like Naziism, Soviet communism, tryany and depsotic governments. This takes us out of the scope of my writing and I shant persue it further here.
Hi Gawen
I don't take exception to anything else in your post. I've enjoyed shooting in the past and appreciate the pleasure of the engineering and the art. But are you joking in this sentence? What history shows you this? Further comments in my head but I want to know first if you mean this...

[Gawen]

No, I'm not some paranoid gun nut. But history will show you if guns are outlawed from the populace, you end up like Naziism, Soviet communism, tryany and depsotic governments. This takes us out of the scope of my writing and I shant persue it further here.
Hi Gawen
I don't take exception to anything else in your post. I've enjoyed shooting in the past and appreciate the pleasure of the engineering and the art. But are you joking in this sentence? What history shows you this? Further comments in my head but I want to know first if you mean this...Russia, Germany, China, England, the list goes on.

The idea the framers had within the U.S. constitution, IMO, was to keep the bad guys out and to keep the government by the people-for the people by keeping the people armed and ready for such contingencies as remote they may be.

[dave_a]

I'm relieved. Yes, I recall that scene in Full Metal Jacket, and I also recall the endresult of one character's internalization of that "prayer" (doesn't it bug you at all that it's called that?). It's one of the reasons I found your post so disturbing.

Bug me that it's called a prayer? Never thought about it. The prayer isn't really to 'God' so much as it is to one's lifemate, the rifle. Within the context of the Marines it was totally appropriate. The Marines are brainwashed to render instant, unquestioning obedience to orders. Without that brainwashing we couldn't be as effective. It's a necessary evil and we were told at the outset we would be deconstructed and reprogrammed and why.

It may seem horrible from a civilian perspective, but when your doctrine calls for charging into rather than away from an ambush, you really don't want to be paralyzed by wondering what to do. It's better to just do, in a coordinated fashion, than think.

Paralysis by analysis and all that.

[viscousmemories]

I realize that was the source of your frustration, but if you reread my posts I think you will find I frequently said "mostly cosmetic" rather than "purely cosmetic". And as you noted I did acknowledge that they improved the versatility of the weapon.
I didn't miss that, really. But my point was that those things are neither 'purely' or 'mostly' cosmetic, they are designed, manufactured, purchased and used quite purposefully. I'll even give you that the M203 is mostly cosmetic for the lawful user, but the other things are not.

The point that I was trying to make was that I think many people simply find assault weapons scary looking whereas they don't find a Remington deer rifle scary looking. For this reason I think many find banning them appropriate, but don't see any reason to ban the rifles for sale at walmart. In that context I was trying to make the point that the difference is appearance, not a functional difference.
I got that too, but you weren't discussing this with "many people", you were discussing it with me, and I told you repeatedly that I supported the ban not because the weapons are scary looking, but for other reasons, reasons that I articulated numerous times. But instead of responding to what I was saying, you kept telling me your theory about why "many people" supported the ban. Do you see why I might be more interested in your response to my arguments than the arguments of "many people" who aren't involved in the discussion?

If I want versatility and am willing to sacrifice some power and accuracy to get it then I buy a so called assault rifle.
Right. Which is precisely why they are used by the military. They are the all-around most efficient tool for killing other people.

Why the assault rifle has been demonized given it's virtually nonexistent use in crimes before and during the ban I just don't get. I can only conclude it is because of how it looks, cuz it sure isn't because of it's being less accurate and powerful than Walmart rifles.
Of course "demonized" is just political hyperbole. Anyone who wants to see restrictions put on gun ownership has to pick their battles. It seems to me the best way to limit some gun sales without too many people whining about it is to go after a minority weapon configuration that nobody has any practical need for. It's really bizarre to me dantonac how you keep going from it was useless legislation that had no impact on the sales of assault rifles to it's demonization of assault rifles and stifling my freedom to choose. I honestly don't see how you could possibly believe the legislation simultaneously did nothing at all and severely limited your choices.

[dave_a]

I realize that was the source of your frustration, but if you reread my posts I think you will find I frequently said "mostly cosmetic" rather than "purely cosmetic". And as you noted I did acknowledge that they improved the versatility of the weapon.
I didn't miss that, really. But my point was that those things are neither 'purely' or 'mostly' cosmetic, they are designed, manufactured, purchased and used quite purposefully. I'll even give you that the M203 is mostly cosmetic for the lawful user, but the other things are not.

A bayonet lug, in a military application, is used for a bayonet. It's for close quarters battle after all rounds have been expended. For civilian use it is for attaching a monopod to steady aim while hunting from a stand or it replaces a sandbag at the shooting range. Rifles lacking this lug require purchasing a different type of support, usually one that contains the hardware necessary to attach to the barrel of the rifle. Same exact function, one is just more convenient. This is what I mean by mostly cosmetic. Sure, they serve a function, but the function isn't a sinister one in civilian use. The function they serve isn't a threat to anyone and can be substituted for. So what's the point?


I got that too, but you weren't discussing this with "many people", you were discussing it with me, and I told you repeatedly that I supported the ban not because the weapons are scary looking, but for other reasons, reasons that I articulated numerous times. But instead of responding to what I was saying, you kept telling me your theory about why "many people" supported the ban. Do you see why I might be more interested in your response to my arguments than the arguments of "many people" who aren't involved in the discussion?

But I wasn't attempting to address you personally. My thoughts were expressed generally and you personalized them. That's fine, but I really have no idea why you personally have the view you do other than you want to see restrictions on gun ownership (for unknown reasons) and you think it's wise to start with something a minority of people are interested in. Nevermind that that minority aren't the ones killing people or using their firearm of choice in crimes, go ahead and fuck with them anyway because they are a small enough entity that we can?????

If I want versatility and am willing to sacrifice some power and accuracy to get it then I buy a so called assault rifle.

Right. Which is precisely why they are used by the military. They are the all-around most efficient tool for killing other people.

Sigh, yes that is why they are used by the military. That isn't why I or my friends like them. They are not the best choice for home defense, the rounds will go right through drywall and potentially hit people we don't want to hit. They are too large to really be appropriate in the average home hallway. Where they do excel is on the range and in the field. The AR15 is an outstanding fox/wolf hunting weapon. It really isn't powerful enough for deer(for a clean, merciful kill anyway), but for farm varmints it is great.

Why the assault rifle has been demonized given it's virtually nonexistent use in crimes before and during the ban I just don't get. I can only conclude it is because of how it looks, cuz it sure isn't because of it's being less accurate and powerful than Walmart rifles.

Of course "demonized" is just political hyperbole. Anyone who wants to see restrictions put on gun ownership has to pick their battles. It seems to me the best way to limit some gun sales without too many people whining about it is to go after a minority weapon configuration that nobody has any practical need for.

No, demonized is when a weapon that is exceedingly rarely used in an illegal fashion is made out to be the ultimate in "bad" guns. When a group of owners who are immensely responsible and law abiding are picked on because they are a small enough minority and can be portrayed as gun nuts and militia lunatics who like shooting up school kids. All in the name of chipping away at private gun ownership. Hell, you want to do something meaningful? Go after handguns, that's what the criminals use. The assault rifle owners are mostly ex military types like me who have no fantasies of ever using it on a human. Folks for whom it has sentimental, artistic and mechanical value.


It's really bizarre to me dantonac how you keep going from it was useless legislation that had no impact on the sales of assault rifles to it's demonization of assault rifles and stifling my freedom to choose. I honestly don't see how you could possibly believe the legislation simultaneously did nothing at all and severely limited your choices.

K, it's like this: During the assault weapon ban I could still buy an AR 15, AK47 or SKS. Thus, the ban was useless. What's the point of a ban when I can still buy the gun legally?

What I couldn't do is buy the gun with more than 2 of the prohibited features. Would the prohibitted features, assuming I was a flippin psycho wanting to go shoot up a McDonald's, make me more dangerous? No. About the only one that would make a difference was the limitation on clip size. But the clips could still be purchased in 30 round capacity, they just had to have a stupid stopper put in them to limit the number of rounds actually loaded. So, if I wanted 30 rounds I would remove the stopper. Pointless. No flash supressor? Ok, fine, so I will order one seperately for 10 bucks. No bayonet lug? Fine, I will buy an after market monopod or bipod. Pointless.

My friend has an SKS with a preban receiver, meaning the manufacture date on the reciever is pre ban. He built the thing to have every illegal feature known to man. Totally legal. He was approached by the DNR once while hunting and asked about his bayonet. He explained it wasn't a bayonet, but a monopod and was told "OK". The rifle was assembled well after the ban and law enforcement couldn't touch him. Pointless.

So all the ban did was make a guy like me who would never hurt anyone and doesn't even hunt cuz I don't like killing animals not be able to legally obtain the civilian equivalent of the A2 which I have a sentimental attachment to. That's where it fucked with people. It arbitrarily limited people with no logical reason for doing so while not preventing the sale of the weapons themselves.

These guns are like Honda Civics for enthusiasts, VM. A Civic is just a car, but lots of people buy them for the purpose of tricking them out and making them look cool. Same thing with assault rifles. People find it fun to have the different attachments and dress them up differently. May strike you as odd, but tricking out a civic strikes me as stupid.

Your notion that we have to start somewhere with limitting gun ownership so lets pick on the minority owners rather than the problem causers is just patently offensive to me. It is why never in a million years could I be a democrat. As much as dems squawk about minority rights, they prove time and again they only mean minorities they like. It doesn't apply to minorities they dislike or don't understand. Just ask Kerry, who says he wants to bring the assault weapon ban back with more teeth? Why? They aren't being used to commit crimes. It's just a stepping stone to chip away, because he can. Go for the minority, nobody will care.

[viscousmemories]

Okay dude. It's a good post and I find several of your points persuasive, but I'll have to respond in detail tomorrow. I'm just tired as hell. :)

[JoeP]

No, I'm not some paranoid gun nut. But history will show you if guns are outlawed from the populace, you end up like Naziism, Soviet communism, tryany and depsotic governments. This takes us out of the scope of my writing and I shant persue it further here.
Hi Gawen
I don't take exception to anything else in your post. I've enjoyed shooting in the past and appreciate the pleasure of the engineering and the art. But are you joking in this sentence? What history shows you this? Further comments in my head but I want to know first if you mean this...Russia, Germany, China, England, the list goes on.

The idea the framers had within the U.S. constitution, IMO, was to keep the bad guys out and to keep the government by the people-for the people by keeping the people armed and ready for such contingencies as remote they may be.

OK, you're serious. Now I'm interested. Less so in the constitutional position, where the people want to defend themselves against the current or a future government. But just in this:But history will show you if guns are outlawed from the populace, you end up like Naziism, Soviet communism, tryany and despotic governments.
Was gun ownership common in 1920s France and Britain but outlawed in Weimar Germany? Would public gun ownership in early 20th-century Russia have stopped the Bolshevik revolution? Gun ownership is somewhat lower in Britain (even the police do not routinely carry arms) yet the regime is not noticeably more tyrannic or despotic than America's. Why did you include England in your list?

If there's a country where gun ownership was widespread and then outlawed, or let's say seriously controlled, that would be an interesting test case. This is happening right now in South Africa and the gun owners are bitching about ... the inability of the bureaucracy to deal with the licensing process. Not about losing their right to defend themselves against the ANC (OK, some Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (http://www.awb.co.za/) or Boeremag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeremag) crackpots probably are). First democracy, then control of guns: do you believe democracy will fail as a result?

joe

[Dingfod]

In my opinion only:

a gun = a tool

Tools have their purpose. They can be misused and cause harm, but you cannot blame the tool, only the user.

If I want to use a tool to defend my family and I from armed attackers, then I want one that is designed for that purpose.

I'm going back into my bunker because the voices in my head are telling me to clean my guns and count my ammunition. ;)

[JoeP]

Warren, you are clearly unhinged.

[viscousmemories]

Okay dantonac, for starters I will concede that you have convinced me that the ban as it was written was ineffective to the point of being useless. I really don't want to keep going around and around about whether the various components selected to delineate between rifles and assault rifles are cosmetic or not. I still insist that their functionality is central to the issue of why they were chosen as the delimiters (instead of things that really are cosmetic, like the color) but now that the ban has been lifted and the slate is clear those particulars really aren't essential to a discussion of gun bans in general, which seems to be what we're talking about now.

But I wasn't attempting to address you personally. My thoughts were expressed generally and you personalized them.
That's not the case, actually. You came in to a thread I had been posting on for two days, read everything that had been written, and opened with:

In reading through this thread I don't see any arguments that really seem to stand up against owning a so called assault rifle other than from people who simply are of the mindset that all guns should be banned or restricted to the point where few people would want them.
In other words, you dismissed every argument I had made in the previous two pages as either non-existent or coming from "people who think all guns should be banned". Since I had made many arguments and not one of them even hinted at believing that all guns should be banned, yeah I was annoyed right from the outset. And in post after post I reiterated those arguments and you consistently reiterated your assertion that nobody had presented any arguments. And the more annoyed I got by your completely ignoring what I was saying, the more you accused me of "taking it personally" and the more you demanded that I answer the question of whether I believe all guns should be banned, since you firmly believed that only a person who believed that could support the ban.

That's fine, but I really have no idea why you personally have the view you do other than you want to see restrictions on gun ownership (for unknown reasons) and you think it's wise to start with something a minority of people are interested in. Nevermind that that minority aren't the ones killing people or using their firearm of choice in crimes, go ahead and fuck with them anyway because they are a small enough entity that we can?????
Yeah see, this is another pretty clear indication that you're not even reading what I write in these posts. The fact that you would say "for unknown reasons" indicates that you completely missed at least five of my posts. At least. I'm not even going to bother to re-read them all to prove it. I know it. I have stated repeatedly and in many different ways why I think guns should be restricted. That was part of the many arguments you didn't hear anyone making.

When a group of owners who are immensely responsible and law abiding are picked on because they are a small enough minority and can be portrayed as gun nuts and militia lunatics who like shooting up school kids. All in the name of chipping away at private gun ownership.
That last sentence is just rhetoric. Of course banning a particular type of gun is done in the name of chipping away at private gun ownership. It would be hard to ban a type of gun and not chip away at ownership of that type of gun, wouldn't it?

Hell, you want to do something meaningful? Go after handguns, that's what the criminals use. The assault rifle owners are mostly ex military types like me who have no fantasies of ever using it on a human. Folks for whom it has sentimental, artistic and mechanical value.
Lol. Yeah right. Do you mean to suggest you might support a ban on handguns? Of course not. You would fight just as fiercely to defend any guns because you think all gun restrictions are inherently designed to eventually ban them all.

Your notion that we have to start somewhere with limitting gun ownership so lets pick on the minority owners rather than the problem causers is just patently offensive to me. It is why never in a million years could I be a democrat. As much as dems squawk about minority rights, they prove time and again they only mean minorities they like. It doesn't apply to minorities they dislike or don't understand. Just ask Kerry, who says he wants to bring the assault weapon ban back with more teeth? Why? They aren't being used to commit crimes. It's just a stepping stone to chip away, because he can. Go for the minority, nobody will care.
Oh Jesus. Now assault rifle aficionados are an oppressed minority? That just takes the cake, dantonac. The day I shed a single tear because someone was deprived of their "right" to own an assault rifle I hope someone uses one on me. I'm sorry if that's offensive to you but I honestly have no sympathy at all. If you were hungry, sick, unjustly incarcerated, or suffering any of a thousand other injustices I'd be fighting hard to help you up. But I guess you and I just have a vastly different opinion of what are fundamental human rights.

[livius drusus]

Just ask Kerry, who says he wants to bring the assault weapon ban back with more teeth? Why? They aren't being used to commit crimes.

There's an actual real live police detective posting in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7336&postcount=32) who disagrees.

[Gawen]

There's an actual real live police detective posting in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7336&postcount=32) who disagrees.Well, there ya go. I'm outta here. The next thing I know ATF and FBI is breaking down my door to charge me with sedition and being a traitor.... :D

[livius drusus]

There's an actual real live police detective posting in this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7336&postcount=32) who disagrees.Well, there ya go. I'm outta here. The next thing I know ATF and FBI is breaking down my door to charge me with sedition and being a traitor.... :D

Oh, don't worry. Unless you're wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt, you're in no danger of that. :beaugest:

[Dingfod]

Warren, you are clearly unhinged.Flattery will get you nowhere my friend.

[Gawen]

Was gun ownership common in 1920s France and Britain but outlawed in Weimar Germany? As a side note, gun confiscation in Germany didn't happen until Hitler took power.

Would public gun ownership in early 20th-century Russia have stopped the Bolshevik revolution? Gun ownership is somewhat lower in Britain (even the police do not routinely carry arms) yet the regime is not noticeably more tyrannic or despotic than America's. Neither had the right in their Constitution to protect such right. Would the Bolsheviks have lost otherwise? I have no idea. Different times. Nothing compares to previous gun confiscations as to what happens in America today.


Why did you include England in your list?Because I thought it ironic that England's first weapons outlawing happened in the middle ages.


If there's a country where gun ownership was widespread and then outlawed, or let's say seriously controlled, that would be an interesting test case. Like I said, there's no real precedence that compares with America, with perhaps Australia's recent crackdown.

This is happening right now in South Africa and the gun owners are bitching about ... the inability of the bureaucracy to deal with the licensing process. Not about losing their right to defend themselves against the ANC (OK, some Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (http://www.awb.co.za/) or Boeremag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeremag) crackpots probably are). I have absolutley no clue what's happening in S.A. or what will become of it.


First democracy, then control of guns: do you believe democracy will fail as a result?There are two reasons for gun control. To protect the individual and to put down armed revolt before it happens. Actually, there's a third reason, that being able to hit what you're aiming at, but this doesn't count in this case... :D
Democracy will not fail as a result of outlawing firearms. What it achieves is a democratic police state where if the government is not checked, it could concievably run rough-shod over its constituents. Now, imagine if the German people of the Weimar period had not seen such upheaval and been suckered. Would the Nazi's have lost at the beginning? The French revolution happened without private ownership of firearms. The people were left with pitchforks and rocks. What gives America the edge over these examples is that one: we're in a more enlightened time, and two: it keeps us on par with a standing army that can conceivably be used against us. Well, at the time the Constitution was written, we were on par. We have that unique right to revolt if the the usual peacable ways do not suffice. I for one am very glad it's not happened in our time. The Civil War should be enough of an excuse to keep the populace armed.

All this comes down to is when the populace is armed, they kill each other and commit crimes with arms. So what to do?


And I miss-spoke about France, which this past century was quite lenient with private ownership of firearms. Two major legislations were passed in 1934 to copy German laws of the populace not able to own weapons in military calibres, and in 1995 which legislation is too numerous to list here, but I will say this: The French must apply for gun permits, which are granted only after an exhaustive background and medical record check and demonstrated need, with permits only valid for three years.

As an aside, it is interesting that during the period 1973 to 1995 the French were allowed three fully automatic assault rifles per shooter, a right only lost with the introduction of this last European law, and during this time not a single problem occurred with a legally owned fully automatic firearm. This aligns with the American experience, where nearly a quarter-million fully-automatic arms collectors' licences have been granted since 1934, without a single offence ever having been recorded with one of the legally-owned guns. If it does nothing else, this experience common to both countries speaks eloquently of the paranoia of Australian authorities who are keen to copy this European community legislation.

French public opinion is not against guns. As an example, in the proposals published in the International Criminology Review concerning the control of criminal behaviour in big cities, no gun control measures have been suggested as relevant. Those measures proposed concern better liaison with youth by social workers, more direct police action against drugs, and better town planning to give suburbs more places where young people can meet for productive social activities (libraries, youth centres, and school help structures are suggested), instead of being left alone on the streets.

There has not been an increase in the pressure from the authorities to prevent ordinary folk from owning guns in the mistaken belief this would alter crime rates in France. Guns are seen to be objects, and the ordinary dictates of personal responsibility require the individual to think about what he is doing with a firearm, exactly the same way as with a car.

Concerning the protection of personal property using a gun, French criminal law recognizes the acceptability of shooting at somebody to save life, but only under precise conditions. When it occurs, trial by jury follows, and if the law has been respected there is normally no problem. Rural areas of the country, where quite everybody owns a shotgun, have a very low rate of criminal activity where there is direct assault against the person. This is well known to both criminals and to the police forces, which agree with the use of this mean of defence.
Mass murders have not influenced the French approach, because in that country a multiple killing is not seen as a function of a gun that has somehow run amok, but a problem of the inadequate detection and treatment of madness.

Sixteen people were killed in a 2002 school shooting in Germany. This follows the killing of 14 regional legislators in Zug, a Swiss canton, and the massacre of eight city council members in a Paris suburb. The three worst public shootings in the Western world during 2002 all occurred in Europe, whose gun laws are exactly what gun-control advocates want the U.S. to adopt. Indeed, all three occurred in gun-free "safe zones."

Germans who wish to get hold of a hunting rifle must undergo checks that can last a year, while those wanting a gun for sport must be a member of a club and obtain a license from the police. Even Switzerland's once famously liberal laws have become tighter. Swiss federal law now limits gun permits to only those who can demonstrate in advance a need for a weapon to protect themselves or others against a precisely specified danger.

The problem with such laws is that they take away guns from law-abiding citizens, while would-be criminals ignore them, leaving potential victims defenseless. The U.S. has shown that making guns more available is actually a better formula for law and order.

My American and European anti-gun friends like to, very knowingly, tell me that the Columbine shootings of several years back show how gun ownership poses a danger to citizens. Yet in truth this slaughter is a fine case in point -- against gun control. Because one of these boys came from a family that felt firearms ownership was immoral. And both of the killers used illegally obtained weapons (with the man selling the guns to them now in jail). So this incident would be best for anti-gunners to avoid as it is a clear demonstration that gun control can't and doesn't work.

Most anti-gunners might argue that these firearms were obtained because guns are unregulated in the US; well, for starters our guns are highly regulated. But there's a catch: You can never have enough gun control to keep firearms out of a nation, unless you're willing to create a totalitarian state.

A free country has open borders and freedom of movement. Such a nation is always going to also have illegal drugs, firearms, or whatever moving in and out. The price of totally ridding a nation of firearms is that one must create a Stalinist-like state, something that I can't imagine anyone wishing for even if it would enable them to take the "moral high ground" in claiming that somehow this price would be worth paying to get rid of firearms ownership. (That said, Britain as it tries to keep guns out of the hands of citizens and also keep crime under control has undertaken a path that George Orwell’s Big Brother might have envied.)


See, I've gone on a roll and ranting. I tried not to do this. My brain is tired. I really don't want to speak of it any longer. The fight's gone out of me. As long as I'm legally able to buy and shoot any firearm, I will. When they become illegal, I'll turn them in. It just ain't worth the fight anymore.

[JoeP]

Warren, you are clearly unhinged.Flattery will get you nowhere my friend.
I've noticed that. :cry: :sadnana: